The thread of Campus Crazy Hijinks

[Forty Two]

Anarchists? I'm more anarchist than those communists.

Are the ones waiving the Soviet flag also "anarchists?" Hard to tell. But, I haven't polled them to see if they are anarchists or communists. Maybe you have. A lot of them are wearing soviet flags as shirts, masks and waiving those flags.

And, they are violent - purposefully planning to coordinate violent attacks against demonstrators or ralliers that they oppose, by means of knives, guns, bottles, etc. They spray urine on people. They attack reporters. This is done with purposeful coordination - it's not "violence that breaks out" in the passive sense the mainstream media mostly reports. They bring the violence with them, on purpose.

[pErvinalia]

Compare that to Antifa, who have allies ... in the media who cover for them and soft-pedal the reporting on them,

I've asked you to back this up before. And you didn't.

Of course I did. You just have to watch CNN and MSNBC --- Don Lemon and the gang just say that Antifa are peaceful protestors. You can look, again, at the video I just posted above about the undercover footage obtained about Antifa members handing out weapons and planning to purposefully attack peaceful protesters and those wanting to attend a Ben Shapiro talk. There are clips from the media in that video, and there is footage of media organizations refusing to report on the footage, even though it was good enough to get antifa members arrested.

Fuck off with this "you didn't back it up." I've backed this up many times, and it's obvious if you watch the news.

The Los Angeles Times: “Protests in Berkeley turn violent as counter-protesters, pro-Trump forces clash.”http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html?= Really? There was no clashing, unless you consider a father and son Trump supporters running for their lives a “clash.” Antifa didn’t “turn” violent, they came ready to inflict harm. They planned it. That's their purpose.

CNN’s coverage of Antifa has been Orwellian and even seemingly sympathetic. With a headline (eventually scrubbed) that actually noted, “Unmasking the Leftist Antifa Movement: Activists Seek Peace Through Violence,” they then compared Antifa’s rhetoric to Founding Father John Adams.

I'll let L'Emmy (where the hell is he/she??) and Hermit fact check that...

and in the public - like you - who think that because their communists and claim to be against fascism that they have their hearts in the right place.

They're not communists. They're largely anarchists. I support what is (or at least was) their core ideals. If the movement has indeed been hijacked by Blac Block, then that is a problem. But I still support action against fascism and proto-fascism.

They're marching with Soviet flags. They're communists - perhaps anarcho-communists. Some probably are anarchists.

What are their core ideals?

I support action against communism and proto-communism. That's a creeping cancer on the West.

The communist flag thing has been shown to be bollocks before. And in those photos above there's not a single antifa flag. Why would antifa march without an antifa flag?

[pErvinalia]

Anarchists? I'm more anarchist than those communists.

Are the ones waiving the Soviet flag also "anarchists?" Hard to tell. But, I haven't polled them to see if they are anarchists or communists. Maybe you have. A lot of them are wearing soviet flags as shirts, masks and waiving those flags.

And, they are violent - purposefully planning to coordinate violent attacks against demonstrators or ralliers that they oppose, by means of knives, guns, bottles, etc. They spray urine on people. They attack reporters. This is done with purposeful coordination - it's not "violence that breaks out" in the passive sense the mainstream media mostly reports. They bring the violence with them, on purpose.

I've personally got no problem with violence against hate mongers like racists, bigots, white nationalists, and fascisty people. Stabbing and shooting people is going a bit far at this point. But a punch in the face is certainly warranted and encouraged.

[Svartalf]

fighting fire with fire tends to produce massive conflagrations...

[laklak]

Particularly in an AR rich environment.

[Forty Two]

Anarchists? I'm more anarchist than those communists.

Are the ones waiving the Soviet flag also "anarchists?" Hard to tell. But, I haven't polled them to see if they are anarchists or communists. Maybe you have. A lot of them are wearing soviet flags as shirts, masks and waiving those flags.

And, they are violent - purposefully planning to coordinate violent attacks against demonstrators or ralliers that they oppose, by means of knives, guns, bottles, etc. They spray urine on people. They attack reporters. This is done with purposeful coordination - it's not "violence that breaks out" in the passive sense the mainstream media mostly reports. They bring the violence with them, on purpose.

I've personally got no problem with violence against hate mongers like racists, bigots, white nationalists, and fascisty people. Stabbing and shooting people is going a bit far at this point. But a punch in the face is certainly warranted and encouraged.

And that's why you're you. I have a problem with violence against hate mongers like communists, Marxists, and blac bloc anarchists, and other such people, and I have a problem with violence against hate mongers like you listed, except when the use of violence is otherwise permissible under the law, like in self-defense, defense of others, etc.

Your subjective belief that a punch in the face is warranted and encouraged (by you) is certainly an opinion you're entitled to, but it is a stupid opinion. Everyone is entitled such subjective beliefs, and if they act on them, then you'll have folks saying that communists, leftists, and their supporters should get punches to the face, too. YOU may see a moral difference between the communists and the fascists, but other people have different moral compasses, and your moral compass is not guaranteed to win the day.

That's why we have the rule of law, which is to be applied equally, and which forbids violence to everyone except in self-defense, defense of others, or in war. It does not allow violence to combat the views or expression of others, because you cannot simply allow one faction to have that privilege and other factions not to have that privilege.

To say that you will cut down that law to get at the evil fascists is exactly what Sir Thomas More was talking about. You, pErvin, are that idiot Roper in "A Man for All Seasons."

pErvin: So now you'd give the racist fascists the benefit of law!
42: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the racist fascists?
pErvin: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
42: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the racist fascists turned round on you — where would you hide, pErvin, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

42: Yes, I'd give the racist fascist benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

[pErvinalia]

Anarchists? I'm more anarchist than those communists.

Are the ones waiving the Soviet flag also "anarchists?" Hard to tell. But, I haven't polled them to see if they are anarchists or communists. Maybe you have. A lot of them are wearing soviet flags as shirts, masks and waiving those flags.

And, they are violent - purposefully planning to coordinate violent attacks against demonstrators or ralliers that they oppose, by means of knives, guns, bottles, etc. They spray urine on people. They attack reporters. This is done with purposeful coordination - it's not "violence that breaks out" in the passive sense the mainstream media mostly reports. They bring the violence with them, on purpose.

I've personally got no problem with violence against hate mongers like racists, bigots, white nationalists, and fascisty people. Stabbing and shooting people is going a bit far at this point. But a punch in the face is certainly warranted and encouraged.

And that's why you're you. I have a problem with violence against hate mongers like communists, Marxists, and blac bloc anarchists, and other such people, and I have a problem with violence against hate mongers like you listed, except when the use of violence is otherwise permissible under the law, like in self-defense, defense of others, etc.

Yes, we know. Heard it all before. Hence there's no need for the wall of text that followed this.

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

Yes, we know. Heard it all before. Hence there's no need for the wall of text that followed this.

Pervin's idea of the ideal message board:

[pErvinalia]

Ironically it's the echo of you saying the same shit over and over. I literally considered putting in a plea for you to not talk about violence this, free speech that, blah blah, after that post of mine. I'm wishing I had now.

[Forty Two]

Oh, you didn't want me to explain how dumb your silly "punch a fascist" viewpoint was? Well, by all means, don't express it in response to my posts, and I won't respond to it. If you're going to demand that people not respond and refute the points you make, don't make those points.

I'll point out that this is not the first time you've expressed a favorable position on punching alleged fascists. What gave you the idea that you could repeat that argument without anyone posting a response? When you repeat a point, you ought not be surprised that responses to it might cover the some of the same ground that was covered the last time you made the comment.

[pErvinalia]

Oh, you didn't want me to explain how dumb your silly "punch a fascist" viewpoint was?

It's just that we've heard it all before. You're not saying anything new.

But post away. I wasn't really being that serious. I, personally, am not really going to read it or respond to it.

[Forty Two]

Oh, you didn't want me to explain how dumb your silly "punch a fascist" viewpoint was?

It's just that we've heard it all before. You're not saying anything new.

We? We also heard what you posted before, multiple times. You didn't say anything new. We know you think it's morally justified to punch people who are thought to be facists, racists and bigots.

But post away. I wasn't really being that serious. I, personally, am not really going to read it or respond to it.

Good. The fewer responses from you, the better. You tend to skip the parts that are material to the point under discussion anyway, like you did in this thread above.

[Seabass]

Compare that to Antifa, who have allies ... in the media who cover for them and soft-pedal the reporting on them,

I've asked you to back this up before. And you didn't.

Of course I did. You just have to watch CNN and MSNBC --- Don Lemon and the gang just say that Antifa are peaceful protestors. You can look, again, at the video I just posted above about the undercover footage obtained about Antifa members handing out weapons and planning to purposefully attack peaceful protesters and those wanting to attend a Ben Shapiro talk. There are clips from the media in that video, and there is footage of media organizations refusing to report on the footage, even though it was good enough to get antifa members arrested.

Fuck off with this "you didn't back it up." I've backed this up many times, and it's obvious if you watch the news.

The Los Angeles Times: “Protests in Berkeley turn violent as counter-protesters, pro-Trump forces clash.”http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html?= Really? There was no clashing, unless you consider a father and son Trump supporters running for their lives a “clash.” Antifa didn’t “turn” violent, they came ready to inflict harm. They planned it. That's their purpose.

CNN’s coverage of Antifa has been Orwellian and even seemingly sympathetic. With a headline (eventually scrubbed) that actually noted, “Unmasking the Leftist Antifa Movement: Activists Seek Peace Through Violence,” they then compared Antifa’s rhetoric to Founding Father John Adams.

and in the public - like you - who think that because their communists and claim to be against fascism that they have their hearts in the right place.

They're not communists. They're largely anarchists. I support what is (or at least was) their core ideals. If the movement has indeed been hijacked by Blac Block, then that is a problem. But I still support action against fascism and proto-fascism.

They're marching with Soviet flags. They're communists - perhaps anarcho-communists. Some probably are anarchists.

What are their core ideals?

I support action against communism and proto-communism. That's a creeping cancer on the West.

Did you really just link to a fucking Mike Cernovich video?! You just eliminated any doubt as to whether you are as big of a headcase as Galaxian and Superuniverse. Oh, man. Mike fucking Cernovich. You may as well start linking to Infowars again. The jig is up. You're not fooling anyone

[Forty Two]

I like watching and referring to all manner of voices and sources. The issue really is whether what he says is wrong or right, not his identity.